{"id":5272,"date":"2017-01-12T00:01:00","date_gmt":"2017-01-12T05:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mgrush.com\/blog\/?p=5272"},"modified":"2026-04-21T13:25:57","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T17:25:57","slug":"after-action-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mgrush.com\/blog\/after-action-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Facilitating an Effective After-Action Review (AAR \/ Hot Wash): Agenda and Best Practices"},"content":{"rendered":"

An After-Action Review (AAR) is an effective tool for debriefing projects, programs, or other initiatives. It may also be considered similar to a Hot Wash, After-Action Debriefing, Look Back, Postmortem, or, in the Agile community, a Retrospective. Regardless of the name, the primary purpose of an AAR is for participants to reflect on what transpired, extract key lessons, and identify opportunities to enhance future performance.<\/strong><\/h2>\n

<\/h3>\n

Purpose of an After-Action Review Session<\/strong><\/h3>\n

An After-Action Review is NOT intended to critique, grade success, or failure. Rather, it identifies weaknesses<\/a> that need improvement and strengths that might be sustained.<\/span><\/p>\n

An After-Action Review answers four “learning culture” questions:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. (Purpose<\/a>) What was supposed to happen?<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. (Results<\/a>) What did happen?<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. (Causes<\/a>) What caused the difference?<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. (Implications<\/a>) What can we learn from this?<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The After-Action Review provides a candid discussion of actual performance results compared to objectives<\/a>. Hence, the engagement participants<\/a> contribute their input and perspective<\/a>. They provide their insight, observation, and questions<\/a> that help reinforce strengths and identify and correct the deficiencies of the completed project or action.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Learning cultures highly value collaborative<\/a> inquiry and reflection. Therefore, the U.S. Armed Forces use After-Action Reviews extensively, relying on a variety of means to collect hard, verifiable data to assess performance. The U.S. Army refers to the evidence<\/a> as “ground truths.”<\/span><\/p>\n

    Participants<\/a> identify mistakes they made as well as mistakes made by others. They prohibit any other use of candid discussions, including performance reviews.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n

    Focus on WHAT<\/span> can be learned, not WHO<\/span><\/a> can be blamed.<\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    The U.S. Army’s approach may use five basic guidelines that govern its After-Action Reviews, namely:<\/span><\/p>\n

    Guidelines for an After-Action Review Event, Meeting, or Workshop\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
      \n
    1. Call it as you see it<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. Discover the \u201cground truth\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. No sugar coating<\/span><\/li>\n
    4. No thin or thick skins<\/span><\/li>\n
    5. Take thorough notes<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \"Fuzzy<\/a>

      After Action Review Focuses on Listening<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

      After-action reviews emphasize openness, candor, and transparency. While complete candor can be difficult for many groups, it’s essential to encourage full disclosure during the process. Participants should identify their own mistakes and share constructive observations about others. It is crucial to make clear that the discussions are confidential and should not be used for purposes like performance evaluations.<\/span><\/p>\n

      An After-Action Review workshop can range from part of a day to a full week, depending on the scope of the initiative. It may involve twenty to thirty participants or more, though not everyone needs to be present simultaneously, allowing for flexible participation throughout the workshop.<\/span><\/p>\n

      <\/h2>\n

      Agenda for an After-Action Review\u00a0<\/strong>Event, Meeting, or Workshop<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

       <\/p>\n